Re: Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- From: Alexander Arnakis <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:26:58 GMT
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:54:14 -0500, ted rosenberg
<tedrosenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly! It's no "cure" when the tradeoff is suppressing one's immune
Most of us would MUCH prefer taking insulin to taking a lifetime of
anti-rejection drugs,with all the immune system damage they do, and most
of us would not be willing to take the increased mortality and morbity
caused by transplant surgery,
system.
Anyway, I've been hearing such reports of "cures" being just around
the corner ever since I was first diagnosed, more than 40 years ago.
Nothing ever seems to pan out. These stories come out because
journalists like a "scoop," and they -- and the general public -- know
next to nothing about diabetes.
In the meantime, however, we've had a lot of real progress in the
day-to-day *management* of diabetes, even though it doesn't qualify as
a "cure." BG self-testing, Humalog, Lantus, pumps -- the list goes on
and on. If management improves further (for example, with an
implantable pump with real-time BG sensor feedback), it would be
almost indistinguishable from a "cure." This is where the research
dollars should be concentrated.
.
- References:
- Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- From: Slap
- Re: Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- From: Joe
- Re: Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- From: ted rosenberg
- Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- Prev by Date: Re: How significant are 1/2 hour postprandial spikes?
- Next by Date: Re: How significant are 1/2 hour postprandial spikes?
- Previous by thread: Re: Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- Next by thread: Re: Diabetis Cured - So why 3-5 years?
- Index(es):